I'm curious to hear more about the http://www.aviaid.com/ LS-A system. I also found a company called ARE that appears to be selling the same kit: http://www.drysump.com/ls1.htm. I only do 4-6 HPDE's a year and don't run slicks so I was thinking of just doing an accusump. I'm curious how much more effective these poorman's drysump systems would be and how much more expensive.

I'm still looking into it all and have my tuner trying to get in contact with Aviaid. I don't see why the LS-A setup would be so bad, a stock C6Z setup only has one pressure and on scavenge stage if I understand correctly. The LS-A has 2 scavenge and then uses the stock pump for pressure so it should do at least as well... I'd think.

I'll look into ARE also. I wonder if we could drum up even 5 ppl to do a mini-GP?

The company who made these went out of business from what we understand.

We felt there was a need to have these made again for the cars with dry sump systems, these single fittings allow the factory large diameter -16 feed line to remain untouched, and the return line can have a cooler added to it.

We sell these same fittings at $89 dollars a piece. Saves a person money over using the double-paired fittings, as then AN-12 have to be bought for both the feed and the return hose, so tremendously more money is spent, over double in fact, vs these single fittings we have.

Ive just finished a 3 stage dry sump setup on a c5 for a customer. I can tell you its not going to be a bolt in setup. There are a lot of custom parts that need to be fabricated. The stock ecu ,fuse box,wiring that has to be moved for the dry sump tank. Its not for a project for everyone.

Ive just finished a 3 stage dry sump setup on a c5 for a customer. I can tell you its not going to be a bolt in setup. There are a lot of custom parts that need to be fabricated. The stock ecu ,fuse box,wiring that has to be moved for the dry sump tank. Its not for a project for everyone.

that was an old post above mine, I revived an old thread because google images bring a person to this thread if a person manages to find the photos of the single fittings above while searching google.

The fitting simply allows an oil cooler to be added to any existing dry sump setup which uses factory GM hoses and GM fittings on the to-and-from oil lines.

We found the fitting was discontinued, so now we have created the similar product.

sometimes people aren't that great with a welder nor trust their welds. This is how we did it at first also, but then we realized it costs as much to have a welder do it than to just have the fittings cleanly made. The length of the fitting must be as short as possible also, as there is the need to make an immediate 90-degree turn coming off the pan, to go to the front of the car.

If that elbow is not executed asap in a short distance, then the hose has to be doubled back to come forward to the nose of the car in the proper passageway area.

Keep in mind, our system allows the stock hose to be placed on a shelf and used again at a later date if the car is returned to stock configuration sometime in the future.

The stock hose is over 100 dollars.

So the true cost of welding them together is already about even with our fitting price just to obtain $50 gm fitting (after the $100 hose is cut in half) and then a $20 AN fitting on each side, plus the welders fee or the do-it-yourself time, and the risk that the fitting might be a failure later down the road.

I'll keep you in mind when I use a GM tank. Do you have a website? Most all the dry sump installations I do I use either a Peterson or A.R.E. tanks. Stock tanks are so expensive and still need the Aviaid baffle installed.

I'll keep you in mind when I use a GM tank. Do you have a website? Most all the dry sump installations I do I use either a Peterson or A.R.E. tanks. Stock tanks are so expensive and still need the Aviaid baffle installed.

Our website is bbbvettes.com and we will have it launched soon. The Peterson fitting is the fitting we would use if the double fitting were used at the pan as it is the only other fitting on the market that has the proper length male section to the fitting to give the fitting lateral strength against road debris that may fly up and hit the oil line. The Peterson fitting is over $140 dollars.

However, we do not like to use the double fitting as then the -16 Teflon feed hose is compromised and must become a -12 rubber id hose, so the flow path cross-sectional area is over HALVED vs the -16 Teflon factory feed hose.

This is a big deal to us, as it has already been reported that the stock -16 feed hose and system on stock c7 and c6 vehicles have starved the main oil pump of oil, when enough lateral G's are pulled on road courses with great aero on the cars.

This oil to the pump recoup/rebound time would be further extended in duration if a smaller -12 feed hose is used, in our opinion, only worsening oil to the main pump starvation moments.

Our fitting allows the factory -16 line to be used on the feed side, and the return to tank line is where we use these fittings and go -12 to the oil cooler and then back to the tank. This way the oil is being pushed through the -12 return line via the scavenger pump. This puts no extra burden on the main oil pump, so no pressure loss of engine oil is experienced by utilizing these fittings to take the scavenger pump's oil to the oil cooler at the nose of the car and then onward to the dry sump tank.

Quantities of these fittings are limited, and it is an 8 week turn around time for us to have more made, so if you believe it is something you may use in the future, get them while we have them. If it turns out to not be a big hit in the marketplace, we may not have any more made. We wanted them for our own project, and now that need has been fulfilled, so we may not make another batch.